POTUS 45.08: Suckers

[joecct]

Everything they wanted to cut, INCLUDING Planned Parenthood, got money. Everything.

How is that not a compromise from Republicans?

They did get more military funding, which was a compromise from the Democrats.

Republicans spent 8 years telling us how President Obama was the worst thing ever, and they somehow figure that continuing the the budget the exact same way won't be noticed???

Which is why the GOP never stays in charge of the Congress for long. They promise their voters X and deliver !X. Voters get ticked and vote the marginal ones out of office leaving the leadership-the one's that caused the problem-still running the railroad.

They have to go. Every single lot of them.

On May 7, 1940 Leo Amery MP, said the following to the House of Commons:

We are fighting to-day for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Well that's not how the news article portrayed it:


That doesn't necessarily imply employees will have a choice to pick one or the other.

News articles spin everything. Was the bill number referenced? I'd like to look it up in the official public record.

EDIT: Here it is, my commentary in the next post: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I don't think it's so much as to how the article was written as how you read it. The statement you quoted is 100% true. If passed, the bill will allow employers to grant comp time. Right now, private sector employers can't.

Also, in the paragraph after the one you quoted the article specifically points out the law forbids employers from forcing employees to choose comp time.

The problem with the article is that most of the second half of it quotes screeching from Warren and others claiming it's all a big Republican scam. Thus, I'm sure many people who may lean, politically, more towards Warren will read into the story a belief this law will enable employers to stop paying overtime, force paid time off onto their employees, then refuse to grant the employees the time off.

How about we come up with a no-spin link to just put the whole thing to bed, the actual text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text

Clause 1: The comp time is worth 1.5x when said overtime compensation is required. So you actually get 6 hours worth of comp time if you work 4 hours overtime.
Clause 2: It doesn't have to be offered; it's an option. Employer and employee/steward still must agree to it.
1000 normal hours required; that's approx. 20 hours per week.
Clause 3a is very interesting in that they'd talk about a maximum...
Clause 3b should put "use it or lose it" to bed, because it's false. Same with termination in clause 5.

HR 1180 seems very reasonable to me. I don't know if my representative voted for it or not, but I'd certainly vote "Aye".

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Everything they wanted to cut, INCLUDING Planned Parenthood, got money. Everything.

How is that not a compromise from Republicans?

They did get more military funding, which was a compromise from the Democrats.

Republicans spent 8 years telling us how President Obama was the worst thing ever, and they somehow figure that continuing the the budget the exact same way won't be noticed???

Sounds like what happened when Obama bashed "the Bush wars" and then didn't spend a single day in peace time. BOTH sides are really not against each other. It's about the party, not the policy.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Sounds like what happened when Obama bashed "the Bush wars" and then didn't spend a single day in peace time.

That's about as brainless a comment about GWB and Obama's military policies as I've heard in a while. From an adult, at least. What does infowars say on the subject?

edit: burd, why go there, you weakling.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Personally I'd have appreciated a formal end to both wars under Obama, and in particular the revocation of all acts of Congress underpinning both the war funding and the steamrolling of civil liberties and privacy here at home.

Force them to renegotiate and pass legislation now that the country isn't curled into a pill bug and willing to give up all freedom for the illusion of security, when any new administration takes office.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Put him on block. You'll never make the same mistake. He's a troll.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Personally I'd have appreciated a formal end to both wars under Obama, and in particular the revocation of all acts of Congress underpinning both the war funding and the steamrolling of civil liberties and privacy here at home.

I believe this is the first time in the history of both of our tenures at USCHO that we've actually agreed on a concept. Well, maybe second, as I believe we were both quite anti-corporatist during the OWS times. Execution's another story, but we can fight about that another day.

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Personally I'd have appreciated a formal end to both wars under Obama, and in particular the revocation of all acts of Congress underpinning both the war funding and the steamrolling of civil liberties and privacy here at home.

Force them to renegotiate and pass legislation now that the country isn't curled into a pill bug and willing to give up all freedom for the illusion of security, when any new administration takes office.

Make them pass continuation bills to whatever conflict is going on when they take office. Otherwise, you have to withdraw in 30 days.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Make them pass continuation bills to whatever conflict is going on when they take office. Otherwise, you have to withdraw in 30 days.

I'd amend this to exclude any confrontation on any body of land owned by this country in the Western Hemisphere. Last thing we need is to surrender our country because of a loophole.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

That's about as brainless a comment about GWB and Obama's military policies as I've heard in a while. From an adult, at least. What does infowars say on the subject?

edit: burd, why go there, you weakling.

Flaggy voted for Bush...he thought Dubya was smart.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I believe this is the first time in the history of both of our tenures at USCHO that we've actually agreed on a concept. Well, maybe second, as I believe we were both quite anti-corporatist during the OWS times. Execution's another story, but we can fight about that another day.

We agree on lots of things:

+ A republic not an empire
+ Roll back the MIC
+ Roll back the Surveillance State
+ End corporate welfare
+ Stop the President from unilateral acts of war unless the country is literally under attack
+ Harvard sucks

I'm sure there are other things.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

New poll (private): Will Trump serve his full term?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

We agree on lots of things:

+ A republic not an empire
+ Roll back the MIC
+ Roll back the Surveillance State
+ End corporate welfare
+ Stop the President from unilateral acts of war unless the country is literally under attack
+ Harvard sucks

I'm sure there are other things.

And they've yet to score on us in 2017.

Perhaps also not having wars on ideas or non-political entities, especially if they cannot be effectively controlled by a government?

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

And they've yet to score on us in 2017.

Perhaps also not having wars on ideas or non-political entities, especially if they cannot be effectively controlled by a government?

Agree.

Counter-terrorism is better thought of as a matter of criminality within the scope of LEO, just like the Klan or drug king pins. When the criminals get their hands on hardware like ISIS did, then LEO should coordinate with the nation's own armed forces to obliterate them. But it is a mistake for a state to declare a "war" on a non-state actor. When the criminals are international, engage Interpol or other trans-national organizations. We didn't have a war against the Mafia, we used the FBI and the criminal justice system.

Warfare is an affair between state entities -- it occurs when the actors are outside the scope of law. Even though you may need an army of well-armed policemen to fight terrorists, they're still just policemen, enforcing laws. If a state is failed then international aid and security entities should be used to control the area and rebuild the state. If a state is healthy but unable to control international criminals operating within its borders then at risk neighbors may have the right to appeal to such transnational forces and if recommended by the UN assist them using armed forces. If a state is healthy and able to control international criminals within its borders but chooses not to, harboring criminals only then may constitute an act of war to be treated as such by belligerents -- hopefully with international buy-in. Afghanistan in 2002 is a textbook example, the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s are another.

 

[aparch]

I believe this is the first time in the history of both of our tenures at USCHO that we've actually agreed...

We agree on lots of things...

Holy sh**. Who knew Trump was such a uniter! Maybe he isn't as bad as...ahahahahaha yeah, I can't finish that sentence.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

New poll (private): Will Trump serve his full term?

I think he will, as long as Congress gives him hollow victories to brag about and take all the credit for. If he starts to feel that he's being deliberately cockblocked on everything by Ryan and the courts, and made to look like the loser he is, he'll exit stage right, and in comes President Pence. America had better hope that NEVER happens.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Holy sh**. Who knew Trump was such a uniter! Maybe he isn't as bad as...ahahahahaha yeah, I can't finish that sentence.

You may be on to something. Maybe Trump is taking a page out of Herb Brooks' book when he got the olympic team to come together by acting like a dick.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

You may be on to something. Maybe Trump is taking a page out of Herb Brooks' book when he got the olympic team to come together by acting like a dick.

I'm going to take a wild guess we're also in agreement that neither of us voted for Trump.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

I think he will, as long as Congress gives him hollow victories to brag about and take all the credit for. If he starts to feel that he's being deliberately cockblocked on everything by Ryan and the courts, and made to look like the loser he is, he'll exit stage right, and in comes President Pence. America had better hope that NEVER happens.

Once he started selling out to the globalists, I'm now absolutely confident he'll serve full term. They were able to get Reagan to cow-tow, after all.